In a rare display of coordination across a war‑torn front line, hundreds of civilians from Oleshky – a city in the Kherson region that has been under Russian control since 2022 – arrived in Belarus on Saturday after a multi‑modal evacuation. The operation, enabled by a short‑lived cease‑fire, underscores both the logistical challenges of moving people out of an active conflict zone and the delicate political balancing act required to do so.

Background: A city under siege

Oleshky, situated only five kilometres from Ukrainian military positions, has endured extensive damage, a lack of basic utilities and a precarious security environment. The city’s residents faced a stark choice: stay amid dwindling supplies or attempt a risky departure. According to the source, a four‑hour window was opened on Friday for those wishing to leave, after which a convoy of 25 buses – capable of carrying up to 750 people – set out, accompanied by ambulances for the infirm.

The evacuation logistics

The evacuation unfolded in several stages. First, residents traveled through the Russian‑occupied Crimean peninsula to the southern Russian city of Anapa, where they boarded aircraft bound for Gomel, Belarus. Four planes landed in Gomel on Saturday morning, the last, according to Ukrainian official David Arakhamia, completing the air leg of the operation. "The last, fourth plane landed in Gomel (Belarus). In a few hours, all Ukrainian citizens evacuated from Oleshky, together with the Ukrainian delegation, will be on Ukrainian territory," Arakhamia said.

Following the arrivals, a bus convoy departed Gomel airport heading toward the Ukrainian border, signalling the final leg of the journey. The Belarusian state news agency Belta confirmed the convoy’s departure, indicating that the evacuees would soon re‑enter Ukrainian territory.

Humanitarian context

Human rights ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets, who travelled to Oleshky alongside his Russian counterpart Yana Lantratova, emphasized that those who chose to remain would receive humanitarian assistance. He noted that the cease‑fire allowed the road out of Oleshky to be de‑mined, a crucial step for safe passage. Russia, meanwhile, announced it had prepared "dozens of tonnes" of aid – including food, medicine, hygiene products and fuel – for residents opting to stay.

Despite the aid, several hundred residents elected to remain in the devastated city, confronting ongoing shortages of gas, electricity and running water. The source reports that these individuals will continue to receive support, though the long‑term sustainability of such assistance remains uncertain.

Political implications

The evacuation was facilitated by a cease‑fire brokered, according to the source, by US First Lady Melania Trump – a claim that adds an unusual diplomatic dimension to the operation. The involvement of both Ukrainian and Russian officials in the evacuation process highlights a rare instance of cooperation amid a broader conflict marked by deep mistrust.

Nevertheless, the cooperation has sparked controversy within Ukraine. Some critics expressed discomfort at seeing Ukrainian officials, such as Lubinets, standing alongside Russian representatives, given Russia’s role in the city’s hardships. This tension reflects the broader challenge of balancing humanitarian imperatives with political sensitivities.

Outlook and uncertainties

The temporary cease‑fire, which began on Tuesday, is scheduled to remain in effect until the end of Sunday, 1 November. Its expiration raises questions about the safety of any remaining residents and the feasibility of further evacuations. Moreover, while the current convoy successfully delivered evacuees to Belarus, the logistical chain – involving travel through occupied Crimea, a flight from Anapa, and a bus journey across Belarus – remains vulnerable to shifts in the security environment.

Uncertainty remains regarding the future of Oleshky’s remaining population, the durability of the cease‑fire, and the political ramifications of cross‑border cooperation in a highly contested region.

Key take‑aways